I noticed that there never has been a topic about the Spring 1942 rulebook download.
So find it here.
The Norwegian Gambit
-
Bunny, here you go again.
We all know the criticism, all I say is that when it works, it really can work beautifully. Of course, Allies were blessed with some kind dice early on, of course the Axis game was suboptimal to say the least because Germany really should not be sinking IPCs in the water, but it does not diminish my joy of having Russian tanks in Berlin R4. Priceless.
Nothing like winning that Battle of Berlin award! :D
Hobbes has been endeavoring to demonstrate that if Axis is capable of changing up and taking more risks following NG R1, then the Axis’ situation following a successful NG R1 is not as bad as it might seem; and that in fact it’s possible NG is not a good risk at all. His arguments are very interesting…I wish I had some time to test em.
Next game you play with Axis check the Case Blue strategy I’ve outlined on the Article Submission section and do the West Russia counterattack with Germany, regardless of Russia doing a Norwegian Gambit or not. In most cases you’ll have the odds on theory to win WRus, the main problem is really the will to sacrifice most of the Luftwaffe due to that Russian AA.
The more I’ve been thinking (and playing) the more I’m convinced that it is one of the best Axis openings, to hit West Russia on G1. And NG just makes it even juicier - 1 Russian fighter destroyed and a large portion of the Russian army diverted to a side territory, while the German units on Ukraine and Belo remain intact… priceless :) -
the main case FOR NG is in cases where you have great respect for your opponent and need a leg up.
Yeah, good call. I agree.
But also NG is good in my opinion if you think you are much better than your opponent. If NG gets diced, then you gave yourself a challenging game. If NG doesn’t get diced, you end the game quicker. It’s a win-win. :-D
It’s also a decent opening if you’re playing Allies, and are having problems dealing with German bomber buy strategies.
Like Hobbes writes, it’s a lot about West Russia on G1, but I’d also mention Caucasus.
Since this thread has gone on a bit, I’ll recap the arguments for each side as I see it.
Germany’s attack on G1 (Germany’s first turn) gets big bonuses if it can successfully take West Russia, and even more if Caucasus can be thrown in. A NG opening helps Germany with that goal by dropping five units (3 infantry 1 tank and the Moscow fighter which at best lands on Karelia where Germany destroys it on G1)
Germany taking West Russia is important because West Russia is where Russia needs to be to contest Karelia (2 IPC), Belorussia (2 IPC), and Ukraine (3 IPC). If Germany breaks West Russia, that usually means Russia is down some income and Germany up some income. It doesn’t SEEM like a big deal, one or two 2-3 IPC territories, but it does add up.
Germany taking Caucasus is usually not a good idea, because Caucasus is usually not a viable target for G1. Sure, Germany can often take Caucasus on G1 but at ruinous cost; on R2 Russia reclaims Caucasus and since Germany paid such a high cost to take Caucasus in the first place, Germany is then too weak to do anything useful. Even if Germany takes Caucasus on G1 and starts with an eight tank build, that still sets up an R2 reclaim of Caucasus, followed by a G2 stall where at best Germany can move tanks to Ukraine - Russia can hit Ukraine and kill a lot of valuable tanks, or can use its R2 hold of Caucasus to put its R3 build in Caucasus to stall out the Germans.
BUT the situation changes if West Russia and Caucasus can BOTH be hit by Germany. Sure, Russia can reclaim both West Russia and Caucasus, and Germany is not very strong, but Russia itself is very weak after losing so much. This usually means Germany can contest West Russia or Caucasus or both on G2, which makes things much more difficult for Russia, especially if both Japan and Germany focus on tank push. Granted, hitting West Russia and Caucasus usually means make or break for the entire game on G1. But it’s decent odds, especially if Russia opens with a Norway attack that sacks five units from the West Russia-Caucasus front. If you open with a West Russia/Ukraine attack, you’re hitting German units that can hit West Russia and Caucasus. If you open with Norway, you’re hitting Germany units that couldn’t hit West Russia or Caucasus anyways, and losing five defenders from the West Russia/Caucasus front. Besides, you’re losing a Russian fighter which is very useful for trading territory without committing valuable Russian attack units.
So much for the early Axis game. How about the early Allied game?
Preserving the UK battleship allows UK to open with carrier-destroyer-transport, for a possible 2-3 transports to Europe on UK2 instead of 1-2. UK is almost guaranteed to be able to use the battleship’s support shot ability on most turns, with so many targets to choose from. If Germany DOES do West Russia/Caucasus, UK and US will have an easy time of building protective fleets, with Germany’s airforce weak. If Germany does NOT do West Russia/Caucasus, UK and US can use the durability of the battleship to discourage German air attacks against the fleet.
Suppose Germany does WR/Caucasus, and suppose Germany killed the UK Canada transport (worst case for UK) UK can drop 2 ground to Norway on UK1, threatening 6 ground to Karelia on UK2 (2 from Norway, 4 from transports).
Suppose Germany didn’t do WR/Caucasus; Germany will likely have 5 fighters 1 bomber; UK will have 1 battleship, 2 fighters, 1 carrier, 1-2 destroyer. Germany can still kill the Allied fleet with moderately poor to decent odds, but it will definitely be extremely expensive.
After the first 1-2 rounds, though, things start to be worse for the Allies in my opinion.
–
Late-early game:
What have the Allies gained from preserving the UK battleship? The ability to drop to Europe a bit faster, a heftier fleet to discourage German air attacks, and the battleship support shot (which is very useful). But in my opinion that’s about it. Landing at Algeria on UK1 is still a deathtrap even with a UK battleship. Landing at Algeria on UK2 was never a problem to begin with depending on the US1 build.
What have the Axis gained? If they went West Russia/Caucasus and failed, well, they gained nothing and probably resigned. If they hit West Russia/Caucasus and succeeded, all the important stuff is happening in Belorussia/West Russia/Caucasus, and it’s happening too fast for the UK’s early drops to make a big difference - this is what I refer to by saying the Norway opening potentially shoots the Allies in the foot. If they only hit one of West Russia or Caucasus, they’re gaining some IPC advantage or some positional advantage. Regardless, Russia’s down a fighter.
Besides all that, Germany can screw with UK/US logistics in Europe by keeping its bomber on Western Europe. If UK keeps its fleet on the coast for a turn, that offsets the speed advantage it gains from having an early battleship. If UK doesn’t keep its fleet on the coast, it needs to build more defensive fleet or wait for US defenders, either of which suck up IPCs or time, again offsetting the speed advantage from keeping its battleship.Of course, with the Allies ramping up their fleet and reinforcing to Karelia/Archangel, the German front against Russia deteriorates pretty fast. This usually means Germany has to send units east, rather than west, so Germany usually cannot actually hold Western Europe as a landing spot for its German bombers. So the Allies do have some counterplay to Germany’s counterplay.
–
Late game -
The usual as the Axis try to secure Caucasus with JAPAN (NOT GERMANY!) and try to secure as much African territory as possible with GERMANY (NOT JAPAN!). Even though the early to mid game is pretty different with a NG opening, the late game more or less resembles the usual animal, with the exception that Russia is down a fighter so is particularly weaker in its ability to counter both Japan and Germany at the same time.
–
Summing up - in my view, the Allies have some potential gains - particularly, Germany may try West Russia/Caucasus and fail, which pretty much means game over. The Allies have a bit of accelerated development against Europe; though Germany can counter, any German counter probably gives the Russians that much more breathing room. However, this does not add up to a winning position in general in my opinion, particularly because if Germany tries West Russia/Caucasus and does well at it, probably it’s game over, only this time Allies lose - additionally, the loss of the Russian fighter hurts the Russians pretty quickly. The loss of the Russian fighter isn’t game-deciding, though, by any means; in fact, I’d say it probably makes very little significant difference until R4+, by which time a single Russian fighter probably wouldn’t have made much difference in the overall game anyways.
I think NG’s a nice strategy to keep in one’s back pocket. First, opponents may not be prepared to deal with it. Second, I think it makes for quicker games, whether win or lose. Third, it pushes the game in a different direction than usual, so makes things more interesting to players that are jaded with the WR/Ukr open.
–
all I say is that when it works, it really can work beautifully . . .
So OK, I admit for the best players playing against the best players NG might not be the optimal way, but I know as you know, that I am not going to beat the best anyway on the standard dice, so why not give it a shot with the edgy sharp opening, eh?Well, when a Russian triple works, that also works beautifully. Of course, I’d say NG is much less risky than a Russian triple (and also less potentially rewarding).
Anyways, if you at least are not claiming NG is superior to West Russia/Ukraine, that’s good enough for me. :evil:
Truth be told, I like a brutal fast game, so I am MORE likely to use things like Russian triple and two-fighters-to-Norway than most players.
-
@Bunnies:
Well, when a Russian triple works, that also works beautifully. Of course, I’d say NG is much less risky than a Russian triple (and also less potentially rewarding).
Anyways, if you at least are not claiming NG is superior to West Russia/Ukraine, that’s good enough for me. :evil:
Truth be told, I like a brutal fast game, so I am MORE likely to use things like Russian triple and two-fighters-to-Norway than most players.
Russian triple depends on the type of dice. Regular one, 57% odds of winning all 3 battles. LL, 90%. The only bad thing about it is that Russia ends up as spent as Gerrmany once the lead rain stops.
-
What specific moves and buys are you referring to when you mention a 57% on dice for winning all 3 battles for a Russian triple, Hobbes? I made the odds to be something like 30% at best.
-
@Bunnies:
What specific moves and buys are you referring to when you mention a 57% on dice for winning all 3 battles for a Russian triple, Hobbes? I made the odds to be something like 30% at best.
What formula did you use to calc? Maybe my math skills are a bit rusted…
EDIT: I think I did it the right way. Odds of winning all 3 battles with regular dice:
Odds (Ukr/Belo/WRus) = (1/Ukr)(1/Belo)(1/WRus) = (87/100)(73/100)(90/100) = 571490/1000000 = 0.57 = 57%Odds of losing all 3 battles:
(13/100)(27/100)(10/100) = 0.00351 = 0.351% -
What formula did you use to calc? Maybe my math skills are a bit rusted…
EDIT: I think I did it the right way. Odds of winning all 3 battles with regular dice:
Odds (Ukr/Belo/WRus) = (1/Ukr)(1/Belo)(1/WRus) = (87/100)(73/100)(90/100) = 571490/1000000 = 0.57 = 57%Odds of losing all 3 battles:
(13/100)(27/100)(10/100) = 0.00351 = 0.351%(re: earlier posts regarding a Russian Ukr/Belo/WRus attack)
Hobbes, the discrepancy between your calculated 57% and my 30% arises because the win percentages you list are based on Russia surviving each battle with at least one attacking unit. The win percentages I used to compute the 30% were based on additional factors.
For example, the Ukraine attack is 3 inf 1 art 3 tanks 1 fighter vs 3 inf 1 art 1 tank 1 fighter. Russia has around 87% to “win” in dice, but that’s considering a single Russian fighter surviving counting as a “win”.
However, my “win” condition is Russia keeps at least 1 tank and 1 fighter, which changes the percentage for the “win” condition to - maybe 60% or 65%, I forget. Keeping both tank and fighter alive means Russia keeps its valuable fighter, takes a 3 IPC territory, and most importantly, stops an additional 2 German tanks from blitzing through Ukraine into Caucasus.
I also factored in retreat conditions. For example, the Belorussia attack is 3 infantry 1 fighter vs 3 infantry. Battle calculators usually evaluate fights to the death, not factoring in that an attacker may choose to retreat, for example if 1 Russian fighter were left attacking 1 German infantry. This also changed the “win” percentage I computed for Belorussia.
-
@Bunnies:
Hobbes, the discrepancy between your calculated 57% and my 30% arises because the win percentages you list are based on Russia surviving each battle with at least one attacking unit. The win percentages I used to compute the 30% were based on additional factors.
For example, the Ukraine attack is 3 inf 1 art 3 tanks 1 fighter vs 3 inf 1 art 1 tank 1 fighter. Russia has around 87% to “win” in dice, but that’s considering a single Russian fighter surviving counting as a “win”.
However, my “win” condition is Russia keeps at least 1 tank and 1 fighter, which changes the percentage for the “win” condition to - maybe 60% or 65%, I forget. Keeping both tank and fighter alive means Russia keeps its valuable fighter, takes a 3 IPC territory, and most importantly, stops an additional 2 German tanks from blitzing through Ukraine into Caucasus.
I also factored in retreat conditions. For example, the Belorussia attack is 3 infantry 1 fighter vs 3 infantry. Battle calculators usually evaluate fights to the death, not factoring in that an attacker may choose to retreat, for example if 1 Russian fighter were left attacking 1 German infantry. This also changed the “win” percentage I computed for Belorussia.
How much Russian units are you bringing into Ukraine round 1? With 3 INF, 1 ART, 3 ARM, 1 FTR that’s a 81% win with 2 Russian units surviving. Bring 1 less armor and you get the 60 something odds you were referring.
-
In my previous post I mentioned which forces I thought Russia would hit with, but as you pointed out, Hobbes, my math is off.
Maybe I should start a new thread on the Russian Triple Attack. ^^
-
@Bunnies:
In my previous post I mentioned which forces I thought Russia would hit with, but as you pointed out, Hobbes, my math is off.
Maybe I should start a new thread on the Russian Triple Attack. ^^
Or we can switch and discuss the Triple that attacks Norway instead of Belorussia… 32% odds of winning all battles :lol:
-
Or we can switch and discuss the Triple that attacks Norway instead of Belorussia… 32% odds of winning all battles :lol:
Yeah, that’s probably the Russian triple variation I was thinking of (i.e. Nor/WR/Ukr) when I mentioned 30%ish.
But I know I wrote something up about Bel/WR/Ukr too. Anyways, I got confused somewhere.
OH well. :roll: Bunnies musta been drinkin too much carrot juice. On the plus side, I have excellent night vision. :lol:
-
I only recommend a tripple attack on russia’s first turn if your axis opponet is much better than you are. If you get lucky and win all three and west russia went really well only loosing 1-2 infantry than you have now given yourself a great advantage over germany. The real problem with a 3 pronged attack as hobbes said the russian’s are just as spent as the germans. If Any of these battles go ary than the allies have lost before they even began. Especially if west russia goes poorly. I played around 50 games of a three pronged attack in LL and I found out that just attacking ukraine and west russia is a better proposition for the allies. Norway isn’t a good strategy VS. an expert opponet. The battleship might seem like it is nice to save, but attacking norway and winning just lets Germany use his fighters in a better way on R1. Attacking West russia or even caucus as well. Sending the sub up to kill the lone transport of UK’s. Retreating all men from africa possibly and send everything at russia. Russia can’t possibly hold out for long especially if russia stacked 6 infantry in buryatia. Japan can then hurt herself and attack buryatia leaving russia incredibly weak for the rest of the game.
Suggested Topics
